Abortion DESTROYED by Knowles | Casually Debunked
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2024
- To support us on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support us through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To visit the DEBUNKED card game website: www.debunkedcardgame.com/
To follow Steve on Facebook: / rationalityrules
To tweet with Steve on X: / rationalityrule - บันเทิง
In this video, I say that the abortion debate is about when a fetus becomes a baby, but there are also, of course, other factors. These include bodily autonomy, the impact of an unwanted pregnancy, access to birth-control services, and the broader social and economic implications. Additionally, the debate encompasses important legal and political aspects, such as government regulation and the balancing of rights.
I would even argue that especially the bodily autonomy argument is the critical issue and the whole "it's a human being/person from conception/heartbeat/viability/whatever" is nothing more than a clever, emotionally charged red herring.
I would also argue that the bodily autonomy argument logically demonstrates that personhood is ultimately irrelevant. I recognize that this is THEIR sticking point and thus why you address it from this angle, but consequently it gives the false impression that personhood supercedes the basic core issue of conflicting bodily rights between two entities, regardless of their status as persons.
The debate ended when rape took part of the equation... "grab em by the pussy" said one of their leader that reached the highest seat. Dude's not only charged and found guilty of EVERYTHING people claimed about him, but he's also 6 years old stuck in a 77 years old body that never grew up mentally. 2 years prior to him presenting himself for presidency, I heard him speak 2 minutes and never wanted to hear anything from him ever again. A guy yanked the mic away from him (he didn't pout or complain because he was under whomever that was... as he should've never even the right to speak publicly) and that guy recanted Everything He said. I know you have a small platform, but it is time you say things like: "state legislator Need to pass X law" in the UK so that the US grasps that it is also time to prevent morons from speaking up. Heck, I'm trying to tackle the issue of the Apostacy law in the UAE as a Canadian, Address the issues with despotism in Russia and Xijinping's reign of chaos just to make the USA bleed. It's already bleeding if you haven't seen what kind of lunacy can be elected xD. PM of Canada was coerced to make us pay 6B for a pipeline nobody wanted (years ago now). When I was a kid, the old PM was also forced to pay 200M for two predator jets for Canada when they were voted out and he had spoken against their purchase.. its so blatantly obvious that politics is an archaic system. Voting for ideas and hiring people (competent) that are available from a list of candidate made public (chosen by people in the fields concerned by the projects) would tailor our society through logic and allow exponential growth as we create summits to discuss inter-disciplinary ideas to push every subject forth. The UN is made up of sergeants and admirals from an era past....... where two morons from the U A E support the Sharia under which all human rights are ignored. Human rights' treaty that was signed by 95% of the Countries around the world... But nope... not for Muslim's 6th century ignorance. The damned book starts with "trust me bro" and its only passages that aren't offending to read (I can destroy its very existence with linguistics as the translations wouldn't remove the giant flaw that is found on Every Single page of this abomination where it basically dictates 2 things that are more than influential nowadays... it's the way they speak, now. Rude is not even close to it. You think a ra bs are crooked? 100% comes from the Formulations in the Quran where people think that speaking that specific way is not only legitimate, it is holy. I wish to share this with the world, but... This is just what will crush it. H a m a s wouldn't exist without the Quran. Dubai wouldn't exist without it. At least, not the sex rings where women are sentenced to eat feces for the pleasure of re tar ded 6th century mentality of enslaving people because they are "infi de ls". Sorry but this makes me Angry. Along with us still debating the stup idest subjects. Just make a website and list a few arguments that make it glaringly obvious that it's Just that: D um b. Racism? D um b / uneducated on very basic biology. We're in an arms race and we're discussing the color of the skin that adapts to UV rays? Are you Serious? A person's right to their own body? Forget the gender... Seriously?!??
It is impossible for a fetus to become a baby as you claimed.
Fetus is Latin for offspring. A baby is classified as an offspring.
I used to escort and monitor at clinics in Milwaukee Wisconsin with NARAL during the height of “Operation Rescue” when the Evangelical Fundamentalists sent waves of their minor children to blockade clinics and to harass & harangue the patients arriving for appointments.
The issue of legal abortion was a passion for my mother, and so has it been for me. The bastards have gained the upper hand once again.
As a gay man, I can unequivocally say that Michael Knowles' intro is incredibly gay.
He always seems so gay. It's confusing.
Typical. Always tryna impose this stuff when they oppose it.
I mean... someone had to say it- thank you for your service🫡🌈
str8 here, I totally agree
Its funny how they never seem to converse with embryologists and biologists about these medical topics and how complicated they can get
Because they know they'd tear them new assholes. They just converse with people who aren't experts just to seem smart.
By any scientific measure, its a life from conception. Think about all possible definitions of life and it qualifies as it is an organism with its own unique DNA growing of its own ability by feeding off of the mother.
If you go by autonomy then you a baby is not completely autonomous well after exiting the womb. A brain is not fully developed until 20's. Conscience or cognitive abilities means we can pronounce everyone on life support dead.
There is no scientific argument for the pro-abortion side
Abortion isn't a medical/biological topic as much as it is an ethical topic. Distinguishing between a full person and a fertilized egg in the womb is not a matter of biology but a matter of morals
@@shanedsouza189 No its a completely biological topic.
@@maxxymrice6200 It is obviously both.
I'm so glad that you are taking on the Daily Wire. These people are disgusting.
Woke wanna cry?
@@readysoldier6799 stfu. You don't deserve more than this comment.
Dailywire is not even 1/10th as disgusting as their typical woke opposition. Except for Ben Shapiro - he's about on par with Hillary.
@@readysoldier6799? That's it?
@@tennicksalvarez9079 Surprised?
Wow! Did Knowles just do: "Arson is OK, because what about this straw man?"
To have moral high ground, you need to actually have morals...
Not to agree with literally anything he said, but I'm sure that wasn't the purpose of his analogy. Rather, the purpose was for him to call abortion absurd because "arson is bad, and arson is like abortion, therefore abortion is bad"
It's a comically stupid argument, for many reasons including him refuting himself in that clip, but at the very least he's not pro arson.
@Balakin2 You're probably right, but unlike Michael I am pro arson in this case (with reasonable precautions), so if you want to have that debate you still can 😊
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 im something of a fire fan myself but the scale needs to be very VERY strictly maintained, building fires are simply too large
Oops , you missed the analogy .
These guys are unhinged. If a new church, set to open, were to be burned down, they would be quick to damn the arsonist. It's cherry-picked and biased with no real reasoning put into their arguments. I feel sorry for the people who follow them.
That's because churches aren't centers of mass murder.
They wouldn't even just "damn the arsonist" - which would be a relatively reasonable response, as arson is generally bad - but they would call it an attack on freedom of religion and likely call for punishments far beyond those for arson.
Even worse they cheered when one of their own tried to burn down the satanic temple building in salem. A few days ago another guy built bombs but was caught because his parents reported it. I havent checked but we can bet these people are cheering for him aswell.
@@nitramreniar It would be labeled a hate crime and elevated to the height of atrocity.
@@aaronhhill Would you hold the same position if a white supremacist beat up a poc ?
he absolutely knows he's just making up strawmen and he doesn't care. honestly, i think you could make an argument that he's guilty of inciting the arson.
He always has a half smile on his face, much like jesse waters. Partly because they can't believe they're getting paid so much to spout crap.
All anti-abortion arguments are strawmen.
His intended audiance is too stupid to see it.
It is like matt walsh when he praised the dude who destroyed a devil statue because it was 'objectively evil'.He criticized the right wingers who thought the action was wrong.
Christians have a big problem differentiating between objectivity and subjectivity.
Back in the '70s, I dated a young man whose father was a developer in our area.
At that particular point, his dad was building a huge business complex in one of the up and coming areas of town.
The guy I was dating was beefing with his dad.
So one evening he set fire to the almost finished, commercial industrial property.
They sent him to prison for 12 years.
Apparently arson is not a good thing to do.
Who knew?
Knowles didn't stop with a strawman, he built a 50' tall wicker man, stuffed Edward Woodward inside and set light to it.
don't forget the bees!
This from the party that says "parental rights" gives them the right to prevent, not only their own children but everyone elses, from reading books they don't like, being educated on history, social issues they don't like, receive medical mental health treatment they disapprove of. How is this any different in viewing children as *property* than what he claims democrats do?
There's a huge difference between protecting and educating children and terminating their lives .
@@jimmymags6516 Yea, there is. If they cant get the obvious stuff right why should anyone listen to their opinion on the complicated stuff?
@@chpgmr1372 If a person can't compentently read a question and actually respond to it, why should anyone listen to their response?
@@jimmymags6516
you're right when you end someone's life they do not suffer
*from trading sexually explicit books when they're too young.
Dont walk rum productions debunked the book ban narrative
“Can someone be another ones properly?* Christianity says yes
So does the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution.
*Leviticus 25 : 44-46*
_Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life_
The Bible explicty endorses, by divine fiat, owning people as property.
*_"... you may buy slaves ... they will become your property ..."_*
God created humans, so they are his property. He makes the rules they have to obey while he is not bound to any of them. So no one can object when God decides to kill or torture his property.
The relationship of God to humans is that of a master to his slaves. I now understand why christians have such a hard time denouncing christians.
@@pauligrossinoz Hi Paul, nice to see you again. Hope you've been well.
@@feedingravens "God created humans, so they are his property." So creating something makes it property of the creator? Not sure I agree.
Also the building wasn't drawing blood from her body and putting her under medical risk Without her explicit content.
I've used the building analogy for abortion before. It's a crime to burn down a house, even if it's your own house. We make a big deal out of it, and rightly so. But abortions are done early so it's not like burning down a house, it's like burning a small pile of lumber and some blueprints. We don't generally throw people in jail for having a campfire.
_"It's a crime to burn down a house, even if it's your own house."_
this sounds so ridiculous i read a little bit about this and it is NOT ILLEGAL to burn down your house as long as it is 100% safe for everybody else around you but because in most cases this is impossbile so that endangering others makes it illegal not the burning itself
Not a good analogy, like the other commenter said, the reason burning your own house will get you into trouble is because it usually endangers others.
With abortions, they only endanger third ones (the mother) when they are done by non professionals. If there is danger at all, then It is often the pregnancy that poses a way bigger threat to the woman’s life than the abortion.
@@fixpontt
If you want to nitpick the minutia, then you are missing the purpose of an analogy.
@@DonCDXXit's not nit-picking to point out that the foremost premise of an analogy is false.
It's also so absurd to me that people make this analogy. A house is something other people use, a fetus is something that uses the person it's inside of. If anything it's more like kicking out a homeless person who's decided to live in your house.
Michael provides proof, again, that he's not commenting in good faith.
And/Or he has some major cognitive issues.
As with all these right-wing pseudo-intellects: Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and all their friends... billionaires have made them millionaires to spew fascist propaganda.
Or has a brain.
I don't think that's entirely fair - he could very well believe that he is arguing in good faith and is just actually that stupid...
@@nitramreniar
Weird question: Is it kinder to denote an individual as being stupid or dishonest?
Is Micheal real? Listening to him makes me think I'm watching one of those shows where there's that one character that tries to act smart but is actually really stupid...
Is the guy AI?
He is stupid and acts like he's smart.
Well, he is a failed actor
it's really hard not to dehumanize this guy because he just doesn't act human.
I'd never seen the intro before and he just does not seem to emote at all.
He moves the body like other people do, kind of, but he doesn't move like he understands >why< a body moves that way.
I really think he's more of a passthrough entity, just a person that will say what ever is put on the teleprompter and move as however he's told.
@@CollinGerberding when you lack empathy as much as people like knowles (hell, pretty sure psychopaths have more empathy than him), it's really hard to act human
The Daily Lie never fails to deliver, if you need bigotry, and it's always way more than you expect. No refund.
I feel like you might as well just go the whole distance by calling it the daily liar, right? It sounds way better that way.
I'm not sure Michael but I think you'd go to jail for aborting someone else's baby regardless of the stage of development or despite the foetus being a potential person but not a fully formed person. Likewise if the owners had been coerced into building the clinic against their own personal moral inclinations because a potential abortion clinic must become an abortion clinic that too would be unjustified. The woman is entitled to her own beliefs but not to break arson laws in order to enforce them onto others.
Damnit, I was going to make a comment along these exact same lines!
This
"Hey, you're not forced to build a concentration camp, but if someone wants to build one of his own free will, you have no right to interfere!" What lunacy.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 I suppose that gives us the right to burn down the Churches then? You do realize the majority of victims of human trafficking are coming from religious orphanages?
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 👍
If a comedian was using this as material, I think it would work. Trying to use it as an actual argument, it sounds *real* stupid.
God, yes! I couldn't wrap my head around what his work reminded me of. You're right, it feels like an attempt at comedy.
@@manwerama It's an attempt at something.
That something is not logical thought
@@manwerama ffs. it was comedy at the expense of the anti potentiality argument for abortion, but this video stupidly treated the comedic aspect as serious and ignored the point about absurdity in a moral principle because it was inconvenient
@@bambooblinds I meant generally, as in all of his work feels like unsuccessful comedy.
"if you do abortion-we do arson"
brilliant logic from smart brain man.
now do john brown
I bet the lawyers told the girl to say she was sorry, because her smirk in the photo suggests she was proud of her actions.
"full service abortion clinic" ?? what exactly is the alternative?? "self serve abortion clinic"??
I think it means they provide reproductive health services other than abortion (papsmears, birth control, exams, etc.).
Still, a hilarious response
I think the directors tried to pull a prank on Michael but somehow Michael couldn't tell that they made a parody of him and ran with that intro.
it's so alien, idn't?
no actual emotion on his face at all the entire time, yet he's presenting as this cool, chill guy in his blue suede shoes.
Michael Knowles embodies whatever the opposite of imposture syndrome is.
It's somewhere between the Dunning-Kruger effect and narcissistic grift
😂 on point
Showing that intro is against the Geneva Convention.
I'm not sure that her claim of nightmares about the clinic says much about remorse. Is there any reason to think she wouldn't similarly have nightmares and anxiety the next time around? If anything, that makes me MORE concerned that she'd do it again.
Knowles is a Christian conservative, being republican isn’t why he has these views. Plenty of republicans like me believe that government shouldn’t have a say in when abortions are done.
Thank you for posting your comment here! More people need to stop conflating conservative/republican with Christian nationalist or otherwise religious!
While I don't share your political views, I tip my hat to you, good man!
Happy New Year and good health! 🎉
Please continue to be vocal and proud!
@@tulpas93 thank you and I agree! I have to explain to everyone that I’m a Republican but that doesn’t mean I’m a Christian conservative. I believe in the constitutional republic meaning checks and balances to prevent government overreach. We are all living under tyranny. This is not the country our forefathers envisioned.
I find it difficult to see the line being drawn here on what is/isn't government overreach especially since the republican party has been (as an outsider observer to US politics) THE bastion of Christian conservatism/nationalism.
Abortion was one of the issues where I thought RvW as originally ruled was the right call, not allowing the government at any level (federal, state, municipal) to have a say in individual's right to privacy and personal medical choices.
The bible is pro-infanticide. The only verses that get you towards pro-life are the ones which command you to love people, to help the helpless and to defend the innocent.
Really loving these shortform videos. Love the longer discussions as well but these are so easily digestible. You remain a legend!
Im genuinely convinced that anyone working for the Daily Wire in a position of relative authority is entirely out of touch with the real world. They just... their rhetoric is so foreign to anyone living in the real world. It's just absurd.
Your own views does not equate to the views of “the real world”. Plenty of people disagree with your views, or else The Daily Wire wouldn’t have a following.
@@jimurban5367 There is a difference between disagreeing with random people and disagreeing with delusional, reality denying imbeciles.
@jimurban5367 There are lots of people living in right-wing echo chambers instead of the real world.
But yeah, obviously there are lots of people who disagree with my opinion about this. But if I were to go around saying the things they say to normal people, I'd very quickly find myself with no friends and plenty of unlikable people wanting to become my friends, and I'd probably end up fired, and my family would start to dislike me... that all adds up to me thinking that these people aren't a part of the real world. They've constructed a reality of their own and invited others to join them there, and people have accepted.
@@calvinwithun6512 I dunno. I hear that The Daily Wire recently put out a movie that is VERY supportive of trans rights. This seems pretty progressive for “a right wing echo chamber”.
@@jimurban5367 lol
I actually disagree that the crux of the abortion debate is when the fetus becomes a human being. The personhood of the fetus is the issue for some, for others the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. Thats the point of the violinist analogy.
Aaaand I just saw the pinned comment. Very good.
ok, but most everyone who seriously examines the violinist argument has admitted it's only a case for rape exceptions - so what is your point exactly?
So "vandalism" isn't a crime
Well, because it's about a point of view:
An American and a Soviet were arguing over whose country treated its citizens better.
The American said, "My country is so free that I can stand in the middle of Washington D.C., yell at the top of my lungs that the President of the United States is an idiot, and nobody will arrest me for it."
"Psht - that's not so special," said the Soviet. "I too can stand in the middle of our capitol and yell at the top of my lungs that the President of the United States is an idiot, and nobody will arrest me for it either."
@@tjblues01 The joke you told is neither about vandalism nor about point of view. It is about freedom of speech and the joke itself is built upon interpreting something literally instead of by the actual substance. The substance and meaning being criticizing one's own leadership.
Hey, you heard Michael, get to vandalizing!
@@anteshell You are correct by the literal meaning of the joke. But you missed the analogy with OP's " "vandalism" isn't a crime" and Michael's "logic". I admit, It might not be so clear.
Michael is the Russian from the joke, who thinks that criticism / vandalism is OK when applied to opposing views but it's bad when applied to his view.
It illustrates double standards in the relation to point of view.
@@tjblues01 Right. That requires reaching quite far but yes, I can now see the path how you get to the conclusion.
Loving the daily uploads!
I was a little bummed at first about Rationality Rules going into politics but after watching you dunk on this specimen and that other clown with the beard I have to admit I’m enjoying it. These people are just so vile
Whats more vile, the typical view of the right that abortion is bad, in all cases, or the typical view of the left, that 9 month abortions are moral/legal/acceptable? If you choose the left in this case you are the one who is vile.
I see you people muster up a lot of energy for the poor women not allowed to get abortions, and zero energy whatsoever for literal 9 month babies being killed. Your morality circuits aint working correctly
I am going with the right even though my personal view is the only actual logically defensible one of, limit abortion to before any sort of brain activity and lets be done with this stupid shit.
It's laughable that Michael Knowles doesn't realise that his own claim can be used against him. He says that democrats believe in people being property. The accusation is mere projection, because his crowd believes that the mother becomes the property of the fetus, and has no say in whether she is used as the incubator for that fetus. The fetus cannot breathe under its own power, cannot survive out of the womb and has negligible brain activity during the first few months of development. If it were an adolescent or adult patient under life support, next of kin could ask for it to be switched off. But a fetus that might not even be viable is allowed to have a female's body as its property according to the worldview of Michael Knowles.
Yeah, that "doing whatever you want with your child because the child is your property" is NOT a democratic thing, that's a biblical thing...
...and it's utterly vile and morally repugnant.
And if we spin that biblical thing further we come to the conclusion that more republicans are Christian than Democrats 😅
No, I doubt you’ll find anybody who would agree with you that the mother is the fetus’ property. I’m sure you would, however, find plenty of people to agree with you that the fetus is her RESPONSIBILITY.
@@jimurban5367 And if she doesn't consent to being the incubator for that fetus?
@@nzmetalhead Lolz, you can’t just get out of your personal responsibility by screaming, “Never mind, I don’t consent to this!” Imagine an abandoned two-year-old found alone and helpless in the street. The cops eventually track down the parents. They claim, “Oh, we no longer consent to raising this kid.” They would STILL go to jail.
A blistering pace recently; keep it up!
5:13 _"it's because the whole debate on abortion rests upon when the fetus becomes a human"._
No it doesn't. One of the most influential argument for abortion is Thomson's violinist argument, in which the fetus is accepted as being human from the get go. In general, bodily autonomy arguments don't _"rest upon when the fetus becomes a human"..._
I personally am for abortion and developed my own argument for it, and I have no problem saying that a fetus is a human.
Exactly, and the fetus is given just as much right to occupy and control another person's body without their consent as any other human being. None.
True, but if that was the case for Michael, he wouldn't compare a building to a "bunch of bricks". That fact that he did, means that he considers a "clump of cells" a human. At least in his context, that's the reason for the debate.
But if you accept a fetus to be a human it would mean that abortion is murder.
I don't think the central tenet of the violinist argument is that the violinist is human. It's that nothing and nobody has the right to kidnap and use your body as their life-support system.
@@esztiszep6334Except that those people still have rights and they are doing it consciously...
And the most important part is that you don't have to kill an innocent human in order to stop it, which also means you are invading someone else's body but in a worse way.
To give the actual reason why the analogy is BS, rather than "children are property":
Burning empty buildings is a crime because of the utility that the building provides to the person owning the building, and burning a clinic is immoral because of the utility that the building provides to the people using it. A person has a right to healthcare, and you are working to restrict that right by removing access to it.
The reason why killing children is a crime is entirely different:
Children should be protected not because of the utility they provide, but because of their own personal rights. And while every human should have a right to keep their life (which is eventually violated for every human because of the way the world is set up, idk why someone would do that), a "potential human" does not have the inherent right to become an "actual human". Nobody is obligated to conceive children, and nobody should be obligated to make a clump of cells that has less of a brain than what you eat for breakfast every morning grow into a child.
Therefore, preventing the potential creation of a clinic will violate the rights of the property owners as well as the potential customers, while preventing the potential creation of a human has nobody to violate the rights of.
_> Children should be protected not because of the utility they provide, but because of their own personal rights_
The notion of rights itself is just an extension of utility. Children provide utility to society, which is why society grants them certain rights.
"Rights" is just a list of things we say we are willing to fight for. "Natural rights" is a teleological concept.
I live in Casper. I have a fiend whose daughter was pregnant and found out her fetus had Anencephaly. Had the clinic not been destroyed she could have sought help here. But because she could not afford to make the trip and care costs in Denver she carried the fetus to 27 weeks. She eventually did raise the funds to go to Denver and deliver her unalive fetus. But she carried the fetus for weeks without help and because she had to endure a late term abortion the likelihood of her bearing another child is decreased. This was a WANTED pregnancy that went wrong. This couple WANTED a baby and because they didn't have proper healthcare at the time it was needed, they may now never have the family the desperately wanted. These pro-birthers only see one option, one outcome, one side...
As someone who is pro life I agree that this is an insane analogy.
As someone who is pro life, I believe in protecting the rights of living people. And as such, I wouldn't be ok with forcing pregnancy upon a living person who has the right to autonomy.
As a person who is pro life I understand that it's a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body and disagree with anyone who suggests that a woman should have fewer rights than a dead person - for example, we don't allow people to use dead peoples organs without prior consent. A woman's uterus is no different just because she's alive! A fetus has no right to a living (or dead) woman's body without her expressed consent!
This is the pro life position!
This people who suggest a fetus has rights over another person's body are NOT pro life, they are pro slavery for pregnant woman. Call it what it is!
@Ciph3rzer0 Of course not. That's one of the reasons that rape is the worst crime there is. But notice that the phrase you used can only possible refer to the act of rape, and has nothing to do with abortion.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 What specific phrase did Chiph3rZer0 use that can only be used correctly with rape? A fetus is not a living person.
@@Ciph3rzer0 I am also not okay with that, but the fetus also has a right to bodily autonomy in my opinion and since killing someone is a worse infringement on a human body than a woman having to be pregnant for 9 months I don't think abortion should be allowed (unless the woman's life is in severe danger).
The thing that took me away from watching daily wire channels was their sheer hypocrocy. They only sound good when you think they aren't doing the same things they accuse others of doing.
I would have thought their lies and biases would be enough to make you stop watching them.
Dailywire's hypocritical and biased on a very limited, well-known number of topics.
Their opposition is hypocritical on a vast number of topics.
@@Conserpovhave u seen mat walsh? Or Candace owen? The most respectable person is maybe ben Shapiro maybe, the daily often connect and pay more less known but more extreme people
@@tennicksalvarez9079
You are hilariously off the mark.
Candace Owens has her flaws, but she's intelligent, and she has lots of integrity. Respect that.
Ben Shapiro has no integrity whatsoever. Much like a typical Democrat.
@@Conserpov their "opposition" is random people they pull off the streets to make themselves seem smart, they fake having opponents because they know if they engaged with the actual other side, people would instantly see through their straw-manning and lies.
holy shit this man must have a black belt in sophistry
“Just a clump of bricks.” This is hilarious!
For me, none of it matters if it's human or not, a person or not. It would not matter if it was a healthy 25 year old grown adult. No one and no thing has the right to use my organs, dwell in my body, without my consent. Nothing does.
precisely
Unless you were raped, you gave your consent.
so a hospital that hasn't opened yet is not a hospital??? LOL, is this guy insane?
A church that hasn't opened yet is not a church.....
A hospital is a building where sick and injured gets treated. So an unfinished building is not a hospital yet.
The problems in his argument were completely somewhere else.
Really enjoying these shorter videos, especially when you go after Knowles, who is in my opinion is the worst of the Daily Wire group. However, this is a very debatable point. Keep up the great work
No, we argue that if any being is USING your body, without PERMITION, At any age or point in development gos agents our laws enforcing bodily autonomy. Making that persons, whos body is being used, right to pull the plug.
4:14 those murderers spending less than 5 years in prison are called cops
I think the pro-choice advocates often go wrong when they involve in the debate wether the embryo is a human or not. That's not the issue at hand. The issue is: can we force anyone to risk their health and offer their comfort for the life of someone else? So yes, the discussion is about if you as a human are property or not. No pregnant person is the property of a politician, her husband, Michael Knowles and not even of her own child.
A problem i've seen come up time and again is that so many anti-abortion people have...other reasons than life of the child.
For example, if you were raised to believe that it's your wife's duty to give you sex when you want it and how you want it, you've already started with the idea that women are less than men. That in the heirarchy of god/jesus, jesus, husband, wife, kids, the wife doesn't really get to say no. Just look at girl defined or paul and morgan or classically abby; they all went on the internet to tell women that due to their religious beliefs, women should be submissive and do what their husband asks.
A step removed from that is women aren't human but baby makers. That they can't get their tubes tied until they've had a certain number of kids or gotten past their "child bearing years", regardless of what she wants in life. That a failed contraceptive is the gault of the person who could get pregnant, and the resulting child is their "fault" and "consequence".
Beyond that still is the idea that white people aren't having enough kids so "undesirables" are becoming too common. So preventing people from having abortions will keep the "right" people in the majority. (Hearing that argument even once was too much, but i've heard it slip from a few very conservative talking heads who say "have babies don't open the borders" in response to a declining birth rate)
For these people, a fetus is more human than the person carrying it, at least until it's born, which is why the person who ended up pregnant whether or not they wanted to should get less say than they do (being completely unrelated to the situation) about their own personhood.
@@catelynh1020 Yes, I pretty much agree. The whole starting point is, in my opinion, if your body is your own to make decisions about or is it to someone else. If you believe there is a god you owe your body to automatically all the sex negative stuff comes along. And since the Bible clearly states that in gods order the man is the head of the woman, men have the final say in what a woman can and can't do with her body.
Nobody is "forced" to make themselves a parent by conceiving a child. Have you noticed the millions of women who are not pregnant, and nobody cares? Nobody is forcing them to get pregnant. And when a woman already is pregnant, there is no such thing as forcing her body to continue doing what it does naturally. Force implies action, so the only force in this scenario would be the forceful ending of her child's life via the action of abortion.
@@travisjohnson7065 Just don't stick your nose in an other woman's body, how hard can it be?
And I'll let the denial of rape go this time.
@@ouwebrood497 Shouldn't you be telling that to the abortionist? The only ones in her body are her innocent child and the abortionist slaying them. I'm not in her body, in fact, that's exactly what I am advocating for - to stay out of her body and allow her innocent child to live in peace.
Damn you guys are absolutely smashing out the daily wire critical responses without a drop in quality. Congrats to you and the RR team for forming such a well oiled machine!
Micheal Knowles, nobody will ever accuse of being intelligent, even minimally.
That was pathetic! 🤮🤮
Michael is still, objectively, one of the most intelligent of the popular vloggers on the tube. Grow up.
It's so refreshing to find a man who supports decision making. Not just pressuring to do the "100% right" thing to do.
Shouldn't women make better decisions before they get pregnant ?
I wouldn't equate a new building not being open for business yet despite being done to not being born yet. I would say it's more like the baby isn't ready to meet the rest of the family yet, or go out in public yet. But it has been born because it is complete.
Edit: Also we don't do late term abortions anyway, so...
A huge number of people defend late term infanticide. (We actually do allow late term abortions, just not late term infanticide in some states.) Just because pro-lifers won't let the baby-murdering mob get their way fully with late-term infanticide, doesn't mean they don't have to defend that position.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874
It's literally not a thing though, so I'm not going to entertain you with the notion that it is.
Knowles analogy is weak. That person burning down the abortion clinic is akin to someone punching a person in the stomach and causing a miscarriage, not someone voluntarily seeking an abortion lol
My comment was deleted, as all dissent seems to be deleted on this video.
It's weird hearing you talk about something that happened in my state.. Great video, as always
Holy shit, he really thought that was a good analogy. Like Michael was proud of that terrible abortion analogy
You should take this topic and run it into evictionism, cause a womb is also private property and thus you can evict anything in it out the moment you no longer consent. Doesnt matter about personhood or not, any entity on your property that you no longer want there can be removed so long as you remove it in the gentilest manner possible.
Libretarian argument for abortion
LMAO, I'm going to start doing this. Excellent troll.
...and then the government introduced property tax on wombs
Human organs are not property at all, and to claim that they are is a dangerous road to go down. If your body is property, then you can sell it, and if you can sell it, then you become a slave. A libertarian argument for slavery!
@@8eight104 except for the fact its a thing a libertarian proposed. Its a real idea, which I guess makes it better?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism
@@rjframe4410 "...amazing."
-Jesse Lee Peterson
I’m sorry…. Who’s holy godly full of morality totally written by god says stone your disobedient children? Also before you’re like well Jesus totally changed that one look at your party and what they say. Sounds more old testament then new no second READ your holy book. You don’t even know what it says. I’m not Christian and I’ve read it 10 times. Yet you who love god have never read it once. I had a friend who told me the preacher said just read theses. I ask why is that? You know what just read these three passages to see why you should read it all. Mathew 28. 1-2, Mark 16:4-5, Luke 24 1-4
I think he must’ve been talking about the many police officers who get away with murder every day.
I live in Casper and it's so fucking WEIRD having the internet talk about my small ass town
For me, the issue is and always has been "what constitutes a `person`?" Not just human cells, but an actual person. However, after years if debating it, I realize that most people are so polarized on the issue, it's difficult to even have that conversation. Personally, I don't believe the answer to be conception or birth. A few cells with a plan is not a person, but how someone is not a person the day before birth and then *poof* suddenly a person at birth is equally irrational imo. That does leave a conundrum though, because then where do you draw the line? I have my opinion on it, but it's just that and few people agree, so it's essentially worthless.
I agree most people are not having an honest conversation when it comes to abortion because they are so set in their opinions on either side of this discussion.
My opinion is that abortion is morally ok right until around half way though the pregnancy. Which is when the fetus brain starts functioning.
@@tristanm4332 Yep, that's pretty much my stance. I use the beginning of brain function as the cutoff, which would be right about the second trimester somewhere.
This is a conundrum old as time in biology.
Exactly where do we draw the line for where a new species evolves? Exactly where do we draw the line for what constitutes a different sex? Exactly where do we draw the line for embryonic development?
There is no real moment when a fetus stops being a fetus and is a baby, since it’s a gradual process. But I’d generally agree that the 14-20 week mark is where it becomes more baby-like than fetus-like since it begins to display brain function and sentience.
@@tristanm4332 What if the brain isn't functioning? What if the brain is functioning, but the lungs aren't? Do you think it's immoral to abort a fetus that won't survive outside the womb? Or that might only live a few days?
I find it remarkable that in the debate about the ethics of abortion, Knowles can completely avoid talking about the fetus’ capacity (or lack thereof) for suffering. Analogies aren’t going to win this debate, but getting down to brass tax will.
An unconscious man does not suffer when he is killed. Good job justifying your own murder in your sleep.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874
If murdering sleeping persons were allowed it would still cause suffering by the effects on society, e.g. relatives, their function in society, everyone being paranoid about going to sleep. Fetuses tend to not have those things.
@@stycore5765 Babies don't have relatives? What planet do you come from?
@@authenticallysuperficial9874
Ok, fetuses don't have relationships.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 His family suffers. His friends suffer. His workplace suffers. A fetus does not have the capability to suffer. An unconscious man does.
The fetus is always a human. It's human cells. It's never non-human cells making up the growing child. The question isn't whether the fetus is human, it's whether the fetus is a person. That's a crucial distinction.
Well, the analogy doesn’t work.
Because a more accurate one would be:
•Abortion clinic is being built
•The owner of the property decides that he doesn’t want the abortion clinic anymore and tears it down/burns it
If we apply his arson analogy to an actual abortion it would be more akin to some random person coming along and tearing the fetus you wanted to carry to term out of your stomach without your consent. AKA not what abortion is.
His analogy fails in so many ways, it's difficult to wrap my head around them all. He's also, of course, overlooking that abortion isn't about who owns the fetus, but rather who owns the mother's body.
The baby owns his own body. The mother owns her own body.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 Exactly. So the fetus has no rights to the mother's body.
@@Beacon80 Does a newborn ha e rights to her mother's body? Or can the mother drop her on the floor in her house and walk away?
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 No. The baby doesn't. The mother can put the child up for adoption.
@@Beacon80 Human life starts in a mother's body. Why would a human have no right to live in accordance with normal human life?
Wow. Did Knowles even think this one through? 😂
Why would he? The daily wire audience is not the thinking type
@@Ciph3rzer0 not disagreeing with the stereotype, but stereotypes don't apply to absolutely everyone. Nuance is important.
I'm a little pissed - I never knew that this Knowles guy existed and now I do. Makes me weep.
The fact that anyone thinks Knowles is intelligent or convincing just proves that the war on public education has been lost.
Such a clown and a terrible analogy. I am so tired of these make-believe arguments.. smh
You know someone should ask him if he believes that insurance shouldn't be privatized. That's why she owes the money after all to pay off a private company.
If only he knew how much we champion ignorance here in America. Logic went out the window a couple of decades ago, and we've never been that good at critical thinking.
Those who don't face prison time for murder are rich people.
The Bible says that people can be other people's property.
Remember that whole US civil war thing?
I have heard the term "tortured metaphor" before, but Michael Knowles? In these clips here? The equivalent of that scene from Reservoir Dogs
The line between RW propagandist and Xian apologist has been crossed so many times in the US it no longer exists.
Michael Knowles did debate a medical student on the topic of abortion it wasn't very good for him and his ignorance shined throughout
You know, given how Knowles phrased it as 'right to her own child', it feels so close to the common phrasing of an argument from bodily autonomy ('right to her own body'), I'm almost convinced he deliberately avoided that topic so as to easier set up the straw man. But coming from this guy, I don't know if he even has a single iota of self-awareness to make that connection, or even understand that he doesn't understand what cases are even made in favour of abortion rights. He is a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, with an extra layer of punchably annoying smugness. The irony also seems lost on him that it's his camp who want parents to be able to exert huge amounts of control over the children and forcibly act if they don't turn out they way they want (if they're LGBTQ, or even have religious or political differences in some cases), and the whole euphemistic concept of 'parents' rights' is just trying to get this control and lack of child's autonomy into law.
Also, Stephen, for showing us Knowles' garish self-aggrandizing introductory tribute to himself, you're a bastard.
dude. knowles was right. this video was hot garbage. your dunning-kruger reference was unintentionally comedic.
A entity has Rights, Natural Law, if they posses Presonhood (True Speech // "the ability to engage in argumentation ethics" ; the intelligence of the entity is not important, nor it is for it to get the answer right or wrong, the only important thing is its potential to elaborate the "question).
Both for individual development AND for evolution, there CAN NOT BE a defined line (perfect example is human spawn, which start as meat, gain personhood around the babbling stage and then need almost two decades to be fully formed, mature, self sufficient members of their specie);
we can say who absolutely has it and who absolutely doesn't have it, but the in-between is forever non definable.
It’s interesting that Knowles commits to the whole “are people property?” bit, because I know a lot of conservatives who do seem to think their kids are their own property in the way they are treated and spoken of.
Same with people of any political persuasion
@@dave2408I’d have to disagree. I’ve found people who are less conservative are generally more open to treat their children as actual people, with diverse personalities, rather than forcing them into a mold to copy themselves.
@@user-uu2cj9ct3j bizarre opinion
And let’s be honest you just made it up
Pathetic really
@@dave2408😂 all opinions are made up of our experiences and observations…. I don’t think that’s the own you envision it to be. You could also lay out a counter argument, but maybe that would be too much mental effort for you instead of blank insults.
@@user-uu2cj9ct3j where the insult
You have a bizarre opinion
How you formulated it is down to you
But I can only inform you of its ignorance
So just thank me a move on 👍
"If the United States has even half an eye open..." Well... that's a mighty big ask from our southern neighbours right now unfortunately.
What's with the latest episodes, they appear to be unfinished..like vut in the middle?
It's not a misunderstanding. It's only misunderstood by the people who only get their opinions from the people who constantly lie to them about it. The people spreading those lies know exactly what they're doing.
Daily Wire: where intellect goes to die
Great video! Though I will say I disagree that the abortion debate hinges on when a fetus becomes a “human.” The whole abortion debate hinges on the fact that pregnant people have the undeniable right to bodily autonomy. No living, breathing human being has the right to use someone else’s body to sustain themselves against that person’s will. Fetuses are no exception regardless of when they become a “person”
Really? "Regardless of when they become a fetus." Even the day before delivery? I think you have to consider personhood and viability along with bodily autonomy arguments to determine lawful abortions.
@@mydavid13208 No. This is a pointless take that right wingers like to harp on even tho it has no basis in reality. “Late term” abortions are not are done just for the sake of it. 93.5% occurs before 13 weeks. Over 98% of abortions occur before 21 weeks. Any abortion that occurs after that happens out of pure necessity to parents who wanted said child. An abortion an 9 months requires giving birth and no one is getting an abortion at that point just because they “want” to. Anyone wasting their breath fighting against “late term” abortions is arguing against something that doesn’t even happen.
Sorry, Mike, but life estate begins at construction.
If butterflies were a protected and endangered species, caterpillars would be, too. Probably.
Michael compares fetuses to property, and then says that democrats are claiming property rights over fetuses. I think Michael got confused between the position he's arguing against and his own analogy. Or he thinks that drawing an analogy between 2 things makes them identical in every way, which would be far worse for him.
Also, property damage is a crime, and the damaged property was indeed property, whether the building was finished or not, so his analogy is nonsensical. A more apt analogy would be something that's not yet property. So like if you're charged with property damage for destroying a wild tree to stop it from falling on you. And... guess what? You wouldn't be charged with that, and that's well within your rights. You can end the life of an animal in self defence and you still wouldn't be charged with a crime (even if that animal is owned). You can end the life of another human in self defence and you still wouldn't be charged with a crime - conservatives are loudly in favour of this... but not when that human is in your uterus. The inconsistency of conservatives is laughable.
Is Mike arguing that the woman was given a charge specific to damaging an abortion clinic? Because I'm pretty sure the charge given would be proportional to the size of the loss. If she had burnt it down when it was only in the beginning stages, like the foundation....she would have been fined less because the damages would be less. How can he mess up his own analogy so bad. It's actually a good analogy to prove our point. Not his.
4:30
um... does he even want to be there?
I never thought I'd look at someone and think "that can't even match Shapiro's charisma?"
If this is an abortion debate. HOW MANY MURDERS is a killer charged with for killing a woman 10 weeks pregnant? Why?
Great job resolving the sotites paradox, Stephen!
Mercy, that was the worst opening sequence I've ever seen. ... Anything other than admit that abortion prohibition is about a power struggle? Does or does not our government have the just authority to force an unwilling woman to undergo pregnancy, labor, and delivery. ... I'd need to verify this, but I think there are legal issues of "parents" with frozen embryos stopping payment for storage of these embryos with the facilities being legally prevented from stopping the services that keep the embryos viable. ... Good show.
Slogans like "my body, my choice" are not about the fetus *being* the mother's body (or property), they're literally just about the mother's body - i.e. the uterus that that the fetus is attached to, the bloodstream that the placenta extracts nutrients from and injects hormones and waste into, etc.
Conservatives shouldn't be so perplexed by this. They use the same arguments regarding children after birth - that it's not the tax-payers responsibility to support the continued survival of people who can't support themselves (of course, I think they're wrong in this case because now we're dealing with fully sentient people on one hand, and a very minor and distributed cost to a large number of tax payers on the other hand).
There are many things at hand in the abortion debate. Is a killer charged with 2 murders when he kills a pregnant woman? If yes, what does that say? And if the father has no say in the pregnancy (aside from a mother's health event), does the father then have any responsibility to care for the child, child support etc? This debate is not as simple as "clump of cells, when does personhood begin." And I'm an atheist. There are separate questions that severely disrupt most pro choice arguments.
I am so glad I got over my conservative phase. These dudes at the Daily Wire completely lack any kind of nuance and seeing so many people follow them is shocking.
If someone intentionally burnt someone else's house and went to jail for five years... would they even be covering that story? If you mention it to him, would he say "five years is way too much for that". Would e have any sympathy for the larcenist? If someone burnt down a church, and went to jail I would say "he deserved it, and maybe five years is not enough"
Their bias is so obvious it hurts. Like the way he smugly tries to seem logical, while defending a larcenist, just because they burnt down a building he did not like. For a religion that claims to be objectively moral, he seems to have a very relativistic morality.
Arson is a crime everywhere. You can't even joke about burning someplace down unless you want an "extended stay."
Surely if the person building the property decided they didn't want to finish construction they wouldn't be forced to.
What a ridiculous argument by Knowles. How far do we take this train of thought? Knowles had the potential to be a decent member of society, but so far, he hasn't sooo...
More abortions = more decent ?
Was it just me or was Michael Knowles show opening a flashback to his old 'movie star' days where he was a homosexual playboy???
Ah Michael Knowles. Making fascism bland enough to be palatable to a general audience. I have to assume that Knowles understands the propoganda he's spewing, but plays dumb by hiding behind that "Shucks, im just asking questions" facade